Pages

Friday, December 22, 2017

Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf was written in 1925. This is an unconventional book that is filled with nuanced character depictions as well as all sorts of observations about life. The prose is presented in stream of consciousness style. The narrative shifts between the thoughts of many characters. Clarissa Dalloway is the main character, and most of the book is focused upon her. The novel takes place during one day of her life, though much of the story involves flashbacks and reminiscences.

Though written in stream of consciousness style, the sentence structure of this book tends to be conventional. I have read a little commentary on the Internet, and I have found that this book is lauded for its innovative style. Woolf’s mix of the conventional and the unconventional does seem unique. Because of the conventional prose and the absence of a chaotic narrative, I found this novel to be the most understandable and accessible stream of conscious narrative that I have ever read.

Not all that much goes on in this story. Much of the book takes place in the characters’ minds. Thus, this novel is, above all else, a character study.

Clarissa’s mind and past are explored in great detail. This is also true of other characters. Richard Dalloway is Clarissa’s husband. Peter Walsh is an old romantic interest of Clarissa who has just returned from India. Septimus Warren Smith is a World War I veteran suffering from what we would now call post-traumatic stress disorder. We also meet other interesting characters. The peek into the minds of these people is moving and often sublime.

There are certain themes that recur over the course of the book. Aside from that of PTSD, the role of women is explored. This book is often called a feminist novel. Gender is examined in all sorts of ways in this book. These explorations are complex and nuanced and are in no way simplistic. To do them justice would take a separate blog post. The themes of communication, isolation and time are also presented. I could also devote separate blog entries to each of these subjects. Throughout the story, these various issues are bouncing around in all of the characters’ heads.

In addition to the above, many of the characters ponder death and aging, as well as meaning-of-life issues. I want to write a few words about the work’s meditations on what seems to be life’s futility in the face of inevitable death. As multiple characters in this narrative are in their early fifties, they are aware that they are not yet old, but that death is not as far as it once was.

Clarissa is very thoughtful and complex. She contemplates the meaning of life in the context of death at several points in the narrative. Here, Woolf’s writing, characterization and philosophizing are very strong,

“what did it mean to her, this thing she called life? Oh, it was very queer. Here was So-and-so in South Kensington; some one up in Bayswater; and somebody else, say, in Mayfair. And she felt quite continuously a sense of their existence; and she felt what a waste; and she felt what a pity; and she felt if only they could be brought together; so she did it. And it was an offering; to combine, to create; but to whom? An offering for the sake of offering, perhaps. Anyhow, it was her gift. Nothing else had she of the slightest importance; could not think, write, even play the piano. She muddled Armenians and Turks; loved success; hated discomfort; must be liked; talked oceans of nonsense: and to this day, ask her what the Equator was, and she did not know. All the same, that one day should follow another; Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday; that one should wake up in the morning; see the sky; walk in the park; meet Hugh Whitbread; then suddenly in came Peter; then these roses; it was enough. After that, how unbelievable death was!— that it must end; and no one in the whole world would know how she had loved it all”

There is a lot going on in the above quotation. Clarissa is wondering about the purpose of life. She finds fulfillment in bringing people together through the numerous parties that she throws. Clarissa’s need to bring people together may be a defense against mortality. Finding and creating meaningfulness in life like this reminds me of the themes that existentialist writers, like Albert Camus, explored later in the twentieth century.

I think that it is also significant that Clarissa highlights her own shortcomings. Perhaps that is indicative of a self-esteem issue. Finally, she realizes that it will all end in death and no one will remember the joy and the meaning that she has found. This is typical of a fatalism in the above that pervades the entire book. Unlike more hopeful stories, none of the characters experience epiphanies where they come to terms with mortality or accept death. Instead, the realization that life will eventually come to an end, wiping out much of what there is to life, hangs over the entire work.

I think that the above look into Clarissa’s thoughts encapsulates a certain grand level of thinking that ordinary folks often engage in. I find that Woolf captures this kind of thinking both realistically and in a very aesthetically pleasing way.

I also think that it is striking how much character development, as well as insight into life, is packed into only a couple of sentences. Much of the book is like this.

This is a curious work. It is in many ways a brilliant book. It is a stream of consciousness narrative that is more accessible than most. It is a fascinating and unique character study. It is not for everyone, as it is mostly a look into characters minds and an exploration of various themes. This book is so packed with ideas. For those interested in innovative literary styles or who like to explore what makes people tick, this book is filled with fascinating things to explore.

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

The Quartet by Joseph J. Ellis is an examination of both the men and the process that brought about the creation of the United States Constitution. This is an insightful book that looks closely at how the political beliefs and philosophy of four individuals shaped history in a profound way. The quartet that Ellis refers to is George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. This book digs into some very specific aspects of history. Those interested in this period and these issues will likely find it fascinating. With that, those with only a passing interest in this subject might find it a little too esoteric.

The book does a good job of explaining the relevant background history. This history is important in understanding the main issues. America’s first Constitution was known as The Articles of Confederation and was ratified by the various states between 1777 and 1781. Until 1789, this document was the blueprint for the American government. Under the Articles, the federal government was extremely weak. There was no executive. Congress had little power. Most power was in the hands of state legislatures. This was essentially an alliance of state governments tied together by a weak congress.

Some saw this situation under the Articles as untenable. Conducting foreign policy was nearly impossible. The finances of the United States were in a shambles. National infrastructure projects were impossible to initiate. During the War for Independence, the Continental Army was starved and undersupplied due largely to the inefficiency of the Articles. An entire host of other problems existed.

Though some recognized these problems, Ellis argues the political consensus was that a confederation with a weak federal government was the best form of government. The author makes the case that the popular belief that arose out of the American Revolution was that powerful central governments, with strong executives, were the road to tyranny.

Ellis writes,

“the majority of state legislators opposed any effort at political reform, not because they believed it would fail but because they feared that it would succeed. Any energetic projection of power at the federal level defied their understanding of revolutionary principles, making the very weakness of the Confederation Congress its most attractive feature. Meanwhile, beyond the halls of Congress and the corridors of the state legislators, ordinary Americans were getting on with their lives, relieved that the war was over, blissfully indifferent to any political debate that raged beyond the borders of their towns or counties”

He describes how these men swam against the tide of elite and popular opinion. These men, with a little help from a few others, advocated for a change in government. Eventually, Hamilton was the individual who actually called for a Constitutional Convention through a clever political maneuver. Once the convention was convened, the four advocated for a constitution that would be created for a strong central government. Finally, they all worked to convince the individual states to ratify the new constitution. The author makes a convincing case that although those in this group, which he dubs “The Nationalists”, were a minority, their superior organization and determination ultimately won the day.

This book is full of insights and observations about these men and the United States Constitution. Ellis’s contention raises a question for me: had it not been for these four men, is it possible that the United States would not have formed into a cohesive nation? Unfortunately, the author does not explore this topic. I think that the book would have been stronger if he had. Many of us, including those who have read a bit about the subject, tend to fall into thinking that the formation of the United States as a coherent whole was the inevitable consequence of winning the War for Independence. However, the author describes a society that was not initially enthusiastic about entering into a federal union. He tells the story of a nascent nation that was persuaded, prodded and at times even maneuvered into accepting a strong federal government by some smart and strong personalities. Perhaps the forces of history would inevitably have pushed the States into a strong union; perhaps not. It is not clear what would have happened if it had not been for these four men.

These questions relate to Thomas Carlyle’s “Great Man Theory,” which postulates that a few influential individuals make decisions that drive much of history. My understanding is that most modern historians reject this belief. Many believe that historical trends are inevitable, no matter the decisions of individuals. Others believe that the truth lies in the middle. I agree with the later. I believe that there are inevitable historical trends, but individuals also make a difference. Sometimes the difference they make is small, and sometimes individuals make an enormous difference. If so, it is still very difficult to know what the world would look like without the influence of “The Quartet.”

If the United States in its present form had never come to be, then world history would surely have been dramatically different. Once again, one can only guess at what things would have been like.

I have also read Ellis’s His Excellency: George Washington and American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson. I thought that both were excellent and balanced biographies.

Reading this book probably will work best for someone going in with a basic understanding of the related history. For those without a knowledge of the relevant issues, I would recommend first reading a good book that broadly covers the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Lincoln Collier’s and Christopher Collier’s Decision in Philadelphia is an excellent example of such a book.

Ellis’s work is ultimately a fascinating look at how just four men had an enormous impact on history. Though very specific, it is informative and insightful. For folks who have an interest in this topic, I highly recommend it.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

This post contains some spoilers, mostly about previous books in The Palliser Series.

The Prime Minister by Anthony Trollope is the fifth book in The Palliser Series. It is another Trollope novel full of realistic characters and realistic human interactions. Like several other books in this series, it is infused with a lot of politics.

The novel tells two parallel stories that occasionally intersect. Plantagenet Palliser, who is now the Duke of Omnium, is elevated to the position of British Prime Minister. As we have seen in previous series entries, he is a patriotic, honorable technocrat who wants to do what is right for Great Britain. He recoils from disingenuous politics and the need to play political games. His wife, Lady Glencora Palliser, now Duchess of Omnium, excels at such political games and quickly becomes a power player while supporting her husband’s ministry.

The second plot thread involves Emily Wharton. Despite warnings from her family and friends, she marries Ferdinand Lopez. Though he comes off as a sophisticated charmer before the wedding, Lopez turns out to be a narcissistic adventurer who turns cruel. The depiction of how Lopez causes chaos and harm to everyone around him, including Emily, her family, his business and political associates is simply brilliant. It is reflective of more modern depictions of narcissistic people. Trollope shows how he really understood human nature here.

The two story threads bump into each other when Lopez decides to run for parliament. All sorts of complications ensue. Many characters from previous books are back, including the immoral but very entertaining Lady Eustace and the young Irish politician, Phineas Finn. A few characters from Trollope’s previous series, The Barchester Chronicles, even appear.

There is much to talk about in regard to this book. I could devote an entire post to Lopez and the havoc that he wreaks. There is a wide variety of characters and themes interacting throughout the work. In this entry, I want to write a few words about Trollope’s political theory and how it relates to the relationship between Palliser and his wife, Lady Glencora. There is a lot of history between this couple, as they have been featured in all of The Palliser Books. In fact, the series is named after them.

Palliser is outwardly stiff, overly serious and does not display emotions easily. He is very thin skinned and he is extremely sensitive to public criticism. However, he has also been shown to be a man of high principle, one who is willing to make sacrifices for his wife and his country. Though outwardly unemotional, deep down he has been a fully realized character, full of emotions and someone who usually acts with decency. He is also an extremely competent technocrat who is an expert in the area of government finance. He exudes gravitas, is highly respected and almost venerated in the political world. As mentioned above, he hates political games and recoils from acting as if he likes people whom he does not respect.

Lady Glencora is also a complex character. She can be impulsive. She has a tendency to be sarcastic. She has principles, but she is willing to bend them for political advantage. She wields her social influence in an effort to strengthen her husband and his political position. In contrast to her husband, she is a great player of political games.

At one point she thinks about how she bestows social approval to some men in exchange for political support,

“They were men whose services could be had for a certain payment,— and when paid for were, the Duchess thought, at the Premier's command without further trouble. Of course they came to the receptions, and were entitled to a smile apiece as they entered. But they were entitled to nothing more”

The way that Palliser and Lady Glencora contrast and complement one another is fascinating. I think that Trollope is saying that government works best when there is a combination of attributes. Ethics, gravity that engenders respect, as well as competence, are vital. These traits are represented by Palliser. Yet, all these noble virtues would be ineffective and useless in politics if not for pragmatism, personal relations and even little bit of disingenuousness. Lady Glencora represents these aspects of politics.

These contrasting styles do cause some conflict between the two. In one extraordinary passage, Palliser contemplates the situation,

“It might, in fact, be the case that it was his wife the Duchess,— that Lady Glencora of whose wild impulses and general impracticability he had always been in dread,— that she with her dinner parties and receptions, with her crowded saloons, her music, her picnics, and social temptations, was Prime Minister rather than he himself. It might be that this had been understood by the coalesced parties,— by everybody, in fact, except himself. It had, perhaps, been found that in the state of things then existing, a ministry could be best kept together, not by parliamentary capacity, but by social arrangements, such as his Duchess, and his Duchess alone, could carry out. She and she only would have the spirit and the money and the sort of cleverness required. In such a state of things he of course, as her husband, must be the nominal Prime Minister.”

This all ties in to the complicated nature of the relationship between the two. This relationship stretches back through all of the books of this series. The marriage between the pair was arranged. Despite this, it became clear in Can You Forgive Her? that Palliser quickly fell in love with his wife. Lady Glencora initially was resentful and disliked Palliser’s stiffness and outward reserve. However, when Palliser showed that he was willing to sacrifice his entire career, a career that he practically lived for, to ensure his wife’s happiness, Lady Glencora began to develop both respect and affection for him.

In this book Lady Glencora thinks about her feelings for her husband,

“She revered, admired, and almost loved him. She knew him to be infinitely better than herself.”

It is not exactly love that she feels. I am not sure her feelings can even be described in a single word. One needs to read the book to completely understand.

Political theory and explorations are infused throughout the plot. There is a lot more than I touched upon above, including examinations of what Liberalism and Conservatism are. Though I loved the way in which Trollope worked political theory into the plot, I found that actual politics in this book became little wearisome at times. Sometimes, pages and pages are devoted to minor political matters.

There is also an unfortunate streak of anti-Semitism in this book. I wrote about this tendency here as it manifested itself in Trollope’s The Eustace Diamonds. This is doubly disappointing here as Trollope shows a strong sympathy towards the plight of women in this book and elsewhere. It is such shame that that he could not extend his empathy and understanding to Jewish people as he does towards women.

I should note that some of The Palliser books, such as The Eustace Diamonds, work just fine as stand alone books. In my opinion however, as this novel has important connections to all of the previous books in the series, it is best read after the previous four novels.

The complex nature of the relationship between this couple, and its political implications, is only one aspect that makes this book worth reading. This is a fine addition to The Palliser Series. It is full of Trollope’s signature insights into human nature and relationships. I have one more book in this series to go, The Duke’s Children. I cannot wait to get started on that one.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

I read the version of this book translated
by Marion Wiesel, who was the author’s wife.

Night by Elie Wiesel was first published in
1956. This is the author’s account of how in 1944, when he was 15 years old, he
and his family were shipped off to Auschwitz. This is a short book. In it,
Wiesel tells of nearly unspeakable brutality directed against him, his family
and his fellow inmates. This is a harrowing book. It is not an easy book to
read, it pears into some of the darkest aspects in humanity.

Wiesel
recounts how his entire family was murdered. Only he survived. He tells of
beatings, torture and starvation. There are accounts unimaginable brutality and
cruelty by The Nazis that I will not describe them or quote. This book should
only be read by those whop are prepared to read of such things.

There
is almost nothing positive within the actual text of this work. Even Wiesel’s own
thoughts exude the darkest negativity and despair. The author starts out very religious. In fact,
recounts how he began studying The Kabbalah at an early age. However, as he experiences
horror after horror after horror he begins to question God in an extremely
bitter way,

“Blessed be God’s name? Why, but why would I
bless Him? Every fiber in me rebelled. Because He caused thousands of children
to burn in His mass graves? Because He kept six crematoria working day and
night, including Sabbath and the Holy Days? Because in His great might, He had
created Auschwitz, Birkenau, Buna, and so many other factories of death? How could
I say to Him: Blessed be Thou, Almighty, Master of the Universe, who chose us
among all nations to be tortured day and night, to watch as our fathers, our
mothers, our brothers end up in the furnaces? Praised be Thy Holy Name, for
having chosen us to be slaughtered on Thine altar? “

My version of this book was only 120 pages long. I get the impression that it is short and concise
in order to show the horrors of Wiesel’s experience in a basic and stripped
down way. That said, I did hunger for more details.

My
edition of this book included supplementary material. A forward by Wiesel, written years later, as well as his 1986 acceptance speech for The Nobel Peace
Prize were included. These materials show a man who has found meaning in life. Wiesel
became committed to anti – violence and combatting oppression and bigotry
throughout the world. He also seems to acknowledge God. However, there is no
indication of this in the text of the book itself. It is simply a chronicle of
darkness. I am left feeling that I need to read more of the author’s works to
understand what came next and how he became the humanitarian that he became. Wiesel passed away in 2016 but left numerous writings behind. A
glance at his bibliography indicates that many answers might be found in these writings.

I
have read a few other first hand accounts of the Nazi concentration camps and
have heard a lot about others. Many similar accounts often incorporate parts
about survivors finding some sort of meaning to life. This work, at least the
original text, does not provide such optimism. I believe this book, the way it is, has it place.
Sometimes the horror of the world just has to be shown as is. With that, knowing that Wiesel did find meaning,
and seems to have chronicled it in his later writings makes this book just a
little easier to take. Ultimately this is a vitally important work. It is a
look into the worst aspects of existence. Sometimes books need to do this.

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen is the story of Catherine Morland. This is another enjoyable Jane Austen novel filled with all of the things that make Austen a great writer. It is both an engaging read and a meaningful book. Though I found this work to be a little underdeveloped, it is more than worth the read.

Catherine is young woman who, though inexperienced in society, is outgoing, principled and relatively confident. Early in the novel, she becomes romantically interested in Henry Tilney, a perceptive and intelligent young man who has a cynical sense of humor. She also develops a friendship with several members of the Tilney family, including Henry’s father, General Tilney, and his sister, Eleanor.

Catherine is eventually invited to stay at Northanger Abbey. The old abbey is owned by the Tilneys and is used as their home.

Throughout the narrative, Catherine is reading Ann Radcliffe’s The Mysteries of Udolpho. She becomes somewhat obsessed with this book as well as other gothic romances. Her stay at Northanger is characterized by her imagining secret passages in the walls, sinister plots and various dark doings influenced by her literary tastes.

This book was the first book that Austen wrote. However, it was not published until after her death. Many of Austen’s ideas and techniques, such as her biting social commentary, dynamic characters, well written prose, etc., are all present here but seem a little underdeveloped. The ending also seemed to be rushed. I felt this work could have used more pages to develop these ideas and to shore up the plot.

I want to share a few thoughts about this novel’s connection to the Radcliffe book and gothic literature in general. It is not necessary to read The Mysteries of Udolpho before reading this novel. However, doing so will decode some of the humor of this book. The main thrust of this work is not the connection between the two books. However, the impact that gothic literature has upon Catherine is emblematic of one of Austen’s recurring themes that appear throughout her novels. The theme is perception versus reality. In later Austen books, this theme is more relationship centered. For instance, in Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth’ s perception of Darcy’s character seems skewed throughout much of the book. Here, we see Catherine influenced by gothic novels, drawing real life conclusions that turn out to be incorrect. When she is first invited to Northanger Abbey, Catherine assumes that it is dark, labyrinth-filled fortress similar to Udolpho castle. When she arrives, she is disappointed to find that
it is a more modest structure.

"An abbey!
Yes, it was delightful to be really in an abbey! But she doubted, as she looked
round the room, whether anything within her observation would have given her
the consciousness. The furniture was in all the profusion and elegance of
modern taste. The fireplace, where she had expected the ample width and
ponderous carving of former times, was contracted to a Rumford, with slabs of
plain though handsome marble, and ornaments over it of the prettiest English
china. The windows, to which she looked with peculiar dependence, from having
heard the general talk of his preserving them in their Gothic form with reverential
care, were yet less what her fancy had portrayed. To be sure, the pointed arch
was preserved— the form of them was Gothic— they might be even casements— but
every pane was so large, so clear, so light! To an imagination which had hoped
for the smallest divisions, and the heaviest stone-work, for painted glass,
dirt, and cobwebs, the difference was very distressing."

In the above quotation, Catherine is actually distressed
that the building is not dark and gothic as she imagined that it would be!

Later, though General Tilney does show himself to posses questionable character, she assumes that he is a villainous murderer along the lines of Montoni, the chief antagonist of Radcliffe’s book. This preposterous assumption almost damages her relationship with Henry. Throughout the book, Catherine makes other false assumptions that spring from her overactive imagination that is cultivated by reading too many Gothic novels.

I find this personality trait in Catherine interesting and amusing. However, I think that this exposition of faulty perception is less subtle and less well crafted when compared with Austen’s later forays into serious perceptual misunderstandings. I think that this is another area where the early nature of this work shows itself. This is a very good book. The typically brilliant Austen plot, characters and prose are present here. However, I found this to be a little less satisfying than other Austen novels. In some ways, this book illustrates how Austen’s skills improved over time. Nevertheless, this is an enjoyable Austen book that is full of wonderful things.

Thursday, November 16, 2017

The Power by Naomi Alderman was first published in the United States this year and The United Kingdom last year. The book is getting a lot of buzz and it is generating a lot of online discussion. This is a dystopian tale that explores the issues of gender, violence, oppression and religion.

Over the past year or so I have read several books that take place in fictional matriarchies. This book fits in with that reading. The links to my commentary on the other novels that I read on this subject are below.

I found this novel to be outstanding. The plot is gripping. The characters are interesting. The themes are fascinating. It is full of ideas. It is imaginative and inventive.

The book is framed as a historical novel written by a writer named Neil who lives in in the distant future. The story begins in the present time. One day, teenaged girls find that they have gained a new ability. They can administer electric shocks to others. Later they learn how to pass on the power to older women. Women and girls can control the intensity and effect of shocks. Thus, most women gain the power to easily cause minor discomfort, paralysis, great pain, serious injury, or death. The new - found power gives women enormous physical advantage over men. In most cases, males are essentially helpless if assaulted by a woman. Most of the narrative of the book takes place over the ten - year period that follows the change. During this time radical transformations occur throughout the world.

Initially, in some places, there are enormous benefits. Abused and exploited women overthrow their oppressors. Women who are the victims of sex trafficking, physical abuse, oppressive laws, etc. are liberated. In Saudi Arabia for instance, women quickly overthrow the repressive regime and free themselves from male domination.

Things quickly go awry however. Chaos and war break out in many places as revolutions spiral out of control. Much of the narrative takes place in Moldavia. There, a repressive and violent female supremacist regime takes power. Men are reduced to a status of near slavery. Males are brutalized, raped and murdered on a large scale. Lest anyone think that there is no equivalent to this in our world, this part of the book reminds me of ISIS's treatment of women. The regime also institutes laws that are very similar to Saudi Arabian Male Guardianship Laws, but in reverse. The narrative, as told by the writer in the far future, makes clear that this is a pattern that will repeat itself in many times and in many places in the future.

In places like The United Kingdom and the United States, change is less chaotic but still dramatic. Violence committed by young girls skyrockets. In schools girls and boys are segregated for the protection of the boys. Men and boys fear being out alone and need to be cautious around girls and women. Domestic violence and murder perpetuated against men by women becomes much more common. Men begin to be displaced from leadership roles in both business and government. Men begin to be objectified and sexually harassed.

In one passage, the President of Moldavia and her entourage is described,

“Tatiana is followed into the room by two well-built men in fitted clothing: black T-shirts so tight you can see the outline of their nipples, skinny trousers with noticeable crotch bulges. When she sits— in a high-backed chair on a dais— they sit beside her, on somewhat lower stools. The trappings of power, the rewards of success.”

Alderman has created scenario, where a major change in the physical balance of power between men and women brings about massive social change in a wide variety of areas. The author puts a lot of imagination into the role reversal aspect of the story.

The narrative alternates between several main characters. Allie is an abused foster - child who goes on to lead a new worldwide female - centric religion. Margot is a rising American politician who uses her power to project strength. Tunde is young Nigerian man who is a journalist and who travels the world reporting on the great changes occurring.

This book is not for the faint of heart. It is full of graphic violence. There are numerous accounts of murder, torture and sexual assaults. Nothing is gratuitous however. Alderman is clearly trying to show the terrible aspects of violence.

This book explores so many issues that it is hard to choose what to focus on. My commentary on several other books that centered on matriarchal societies focused on the nature/nurture debate and gender differences. Thus I will write a few words on those issues. Alderman raises what I think should have been an obvious, but somehow overlooked point here. That is, she attributes much of the gender differences relating to violence, sexism, reproductive strategies, etc. to the difference in raw physical strength that exists between most men and women. In a short Twitter conversation I had with her, she emphasized that she thought that the ability to inflict pain was a big factor. It is surprising to me that that this point is not brought up more often.

The main point of the book is that the consequences of this change in physical power would drive fundamental changes in multiple levels of society. The novel makes a somewhat convincing case and makes me wonder how much gender differences relate to physical strength.

I think that if such a transformation occurred a lot of things would change. However, I also think that evolutionary psychology drives a lot of the differences in the behavior of large groups of men and women. I think this is true in regards to the propensity to be violent, and in reproductive strategies. In other words, it is more likely, due to genetics, that men will be violent. It is also more likely that men will act in certain ways when it comes to choosing mates, objectifying people in sexual ways, tendency to rape, etc.

I do think that Alderman in on to something. I agree that the disparity in physical strength and the ability to inflict pain is at the root of a lot of gender differences. But I think that there is more to the story. If such a dramatic change happened, as envisioned in this book, violence committed by women would surely rise. However, I do not believe it would rise as high as it does in this story. More women would harass and objectify men. However, I do not believe that the mirror imagine world that the book portrays would come to be. Women might exploit and oppress men for sexual and reproductive reasons, but I think that if they did, it would be in different ways. In regards to rape, I think that more women would commit rape against men (a small number do so now) But I do not believe that they would not do so on the level of the mass rapes depicted on this book.

I wrote much of the above before I finished the book. To my surprise, I found that before the story closes, Alderman presents a fascinating, counterargument to the evolutionary psychology type arguments that I mention above. She clearly anticipated such objections. As mentioned above, the entire story is framed as a historical novel by a writer in the far future. The supposed writer is a man named Neil, living in a society where men are clearly face sexism citizen and discrimination, but that may be slowly moving towards equality. “The Power” has indeed changed the world forever. Neil exchanges letters with another writer who is a woman named Naomi. In her letters Naomi makes an evolutionary psychological argument as to why women are more violent then men. She writes,

“Men have evolved to be strong worker homestead-keepers, while women— with babies to protect from harm— have had to become aggressive and violent. The few partial patriarchies that have ever existed in human society have been very peaceful places. “

Neil writes back,

“I… don’t think much of evolutionary psychology, at least as it relates to gender. As to whether men are naturally more peaceful and nurturing than women… that will be up to the reader to decide, I suppose. But consider this: are patriarchies peaceful because men are peaceful? Or do more peaceful societies tend to allow men to rise to the top because they place less value on the capacity for violence? “

I think Neil is speaking for Alderman here. I also think that she is leaving it to "the reader to decide" here.

The counter argument, presented in this way is simply brilliant. At the vary least, it illustrates how easy one can create a narrative based on evolutionary psychology, that sounds convincing, but that is simply untrue. With that, I am still convinced that evolutionary psychology plays a major part in relation to these issues. In my opinion, a change in relative physical strength between the sexes would make a big difference in our society but such a change would not create a mirror image society.

I am quibbling a little here. These are complicated issues that almost no two people would agree on everything about. Despite my own beliefs, this book is an extremely compelling narrative. It is extremely imaginative and it is bursting with fresh ideas. Alderman is, at the very least, raising many compelling questions.

I have also only scratched the surface. The book has so many other things to say about people and society. In particular, the book delves deeply into the subject of religion. I could devote an entire, long blog post on that issue. The work also tries to explore the root causes of violence and oppression.

I found this book to be fascinating. I found it to be brilliant in parts. The plot and themes are intriguing. The characters are interesting. Throughout the book there is a sense of tension that shows Alderman’s skill as a writer. I think that this book belongs alongside some of the best works of work of dystopian fiction. Due to a lot of graphic violence this book is not for everyone. However, for those interested in this kind of story and themes, this is a must read.

Saturday, November 11, 2017

Scars of Independence by Holger Hoock is an examination of the American Revolution through the lens of violence. Specifically, the author looks at non-battlefield violence, such as mob attacks, violence directed against civilians, violence and mistreatment of prisoners of war and similar events and incidents. Though I disagree with some of the author’s contentions, this is an important and riveting history book.

Early on, Hoock makes an assertion that is, in my opinion, questionable. He argues that there exists a pattern of underplaying and whitewashing of the violence that occurred during the American Revolutionary War. He cites several historians and books. He writes,

"For over two centuries, this topic has been subject to whitewashing and selective remembering and forgetting. While contemporaries experienced the Revolution as frightening, messy, and divisive, its pervasive violence and terror have since yielded to romanticized notions of the nation’s birth. In painting an unvarnished portrait of Revolutionary-era violence, violence, we can shed new light on how participants understood their struggles and how survivors and subsequent generations have remembered and mis-remembered the conflict."

I find this contention unconvincing, at least in terms of contemporary history and popular accounts. I have read somewhat extensively on this subject. While there may be some tendency in popular culture to see the Revolution through rose-covered glasses, and some histories to not touch upon the negative aspects of the event, anyone who reads or otherwise explores the history of this era in any detail will be familiar with the bad stuff. Violence against civilians, mistreatment of prisoners of war, mob violence, etc., are commonly chronicled and sometimes analyzed in history books. Works such as Fighting For the King in America's First Civil War by Thomas B. Allen, Benedict Arnold: Patriot and Traitor by Willard Sterne Randall, and His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph J. Ellis, are just a few examples of books that I have read over the past few years that examined these terrible events. Even the recently aired television series Turn depicted a lot of violence that was part of this trend.

Despite my above objection, this is a very worthwhile book. It is a fair account of the dark side of the American Revolution. Though other books and accounts do delve into these things, by focusing on this kind of violence, Hoock is able to paint a coherent picture of this aspect of the revolution. He also provides important insights and analysis. Violence committed by both armies as well as by mobs and bands of citizens is detailed. The horrendous actions of both sides are well illustrated. This is a balanced history.

The British army perpetuated rape and general violence against civilians as well as pillaging. American prisoners of war were treated horrendously and endured starvation, disease, exposure to the elements and filth. Hoock gives credit where it is due. For instance, with a few notable exceptions, the Americans treated British prisoners of war much more humanely.

There are plenty of things that Hoock calls the rebel side to task for. For instance, an American force in upstate New York carried on a brutal campaign against mostly noncombatant members of the Iroquois nation. The Loyalists in particular were subjected to terrible violence and often endured mob attacks and torture. Their property was often destroyed or confiscated.

Hoock succeeds not just in organizing this violence and crimes, but also in illustrating the causes as well as some of the implications of these events. For instance, he attributes the better treatment of British prisoners to two factors: first, George Washington had a strict code of honor that impelled him to ensure that prisoners were humanely treated; second, the rebels had a lot more physical room at their disposal to house prisoners. The author explains how this difference in available space made an enormous difference in the quality of life of prisoners of war.

Another interesting, insight: Hoock explains how brutal mob violence aimed at Loyalists was a major consideration for the British to deploy troops in America as well as to continue the war even after a series of defeats.

The above are just a few examples of the many insights contained in this book. It is filled with close examinations into the circumstances as well as the underlying causes of both questionable actions by both sides of the conflict.

This is a really good book for anyone interested in the American Revolution or in American history in general. Though not as groundbreaking as the author maintains, it is a solid work of history that builds a coherent picture of some of the worst things that happened during The American Revolution.

Friday, November 3, 2017

Vanity Fair by William Makepeace Thackeray is the story of two young women, Amelia Sedley and Becky Sharp. Set during and in the years following the Napoleonic Wars, the narrative covers the marriages and social interactions of these two women. The book is a biting social satire of people and norms.

Becky is a cynical schemer and very manipulative. She lies, cheats and uses her sexuality to manipulate others. Amelia is a depressive who is innocent and mostly virtuous. Early on, Becky marries Rawdon Crawley, who is irresponsible, not very bright and often behaves unethically. Crawly worships Becky and is easily controlled. Despite his flaws, Rawdon does show some decency. For instance, while Becky is scornful and neglectful of the couple’s son, Rawdon clearly loves the boy and shows him kindness.

Amelia marries George Osborne, who, though not without some good points, is irresponsible and neglectful of her. Many of the male characters are British officers and some of the narrative centers upon the Battle of Waterloo. When George is killed in that clash, the pregnant Amelia plunges into even deeper depression.

William Dobbin is a friend of George who waits in the background and tries to protect the widowed Amelia and her son Georgy. When he is transferred to India Amelia’s family slides into financial ruin, and Amelia is brought down with them. Eventually the two are reunited. Amelia and Dobbin represent the moral center of the book.

One striking thing about this novel is the point of view and narration. The narrator refers to himself or herself (At one point the narrator seems to undergo a gender switch) as “I” and occasionally refers to visiting locations in the narrative and meetings with the characters. A Google search of the point of view of this work indicated that this is called first person peripheral.

The narrator is also extremely cynical, sarcastic and may be unreliable. People and conventions are skewered on page after page. Sometimes the attacks are humorous. Sometimes they are serious and sad. People’s vanity, greed, hypocrisy, etc. are all fair game. All of this seems to come naturally because the book is full of vain, greedy and pompous people. Everything, from wealth, aristocracy, the upper classes, the middle classes, the lower classes, men in general, women in general, the legal system and so much more are satirized and/or picked apart. At one point, the hypocrisy within families is examined when going through the Osborne family portraits.

“There was a picture of the family over the mantelpiece, removed thither from the front room after Mrs. Osborne's death— George was on a pony, the elder sister holding him up a bunch of flowers; the younger led by her mother's hand; all with red cheeks and large red mouths, simpering on each other in the approved family-portrait manner. The mother lay underground now, long since forgotten— the sisters and brother had a hundred different interests of their own, and, familiar still, were utterly estranged from each other. Some few score of years afterwards, when all the parties represented are grown old, what bitter satire there is in those flaunting childish family-portraits, with their farce of sentiment and smiling lies, and innocence so self-conscious and self-satisfied.”

This book is full of such passages. The work is thus a sardonic indictment on the foibles of people and society.

However, all is not negative within these pages. I think that Thackeray provides a clue as to his own worldview when we consider who he does not tear to pieces. The characters and actions of Amelia or Dobbin are never once mocked or criticized. On the contrary, they are talked about in almost reverential tones. Both are shown to possess some flaws, but these flaws are never ridiculed or described in a harsh light.

At one point Georgy’s upbringing under Amelia is observed,

“He had been brought up by a kind, weak, and tender woman, who had no pride about anything but about him, and whose heart was so pure and whose bearing was so meek and humble that she could not but needs be a true lady. She busied herself in gentle offices and quiet duties; if she never said brilliant things, she never spoke or thought unkind ones; guileless and artless, loving and pure, indeed how could our poor little Amelia be other than a real gentlewoman!”

Such passages are common within the novel concerning both Amelia and Dobbin. I think that in these words, Thackeray is telling us what he finds moral and decent in the world. In a book filled with arrogant and prideful characters, I think that it is significant that Amelia’s humility is championed. In the end, the book is illustrating a terribly capricious world full of greed, hypocrisy and lies. A few good people, who seem to be almost beyond reproach, exist as an island against these ills.

There is a lot going on in this book. I have barely scratched the surface above. There are major characters and subplots that I have not even mentioned. It is full of interesting ideas and themes. It has much to say about the world. It is also full of interesting characters. The plot is often engrossing, and the writing is excellent. The prose ranges from the hilarious to the poignant. This novel deserves to be called a classic.

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Neuromancer by William Gibson has proven
to be both a prophetic and influential work. While Gibson inevitably got
some things wrong, (he completely missed wireless technology) he got so much
right. The depiction of the Matrix anticipated the Internet. This alone gives
this book special distinction.On the cultural
end, this novel predicted that people involved with digital technology would
earn social approval within popular culture, or in more common terms, it
predicted that digital technology and those who were skilled at manipulating it
could be considered “cool.” In the mid
1980s, this seemed like such an unusual concept. I remember thinking this the
first time that I read this book. Today,
so much technology is considered “trendy.” Video games and the people who play
them are often seen as hip and cool. Other groups, such as hackers and online
social groups, are often romanticized. Gibson’s prediction that tech
culture would become socially popular may have turned out to be the most
prescient aspect of this work. The
question arises: How much of this did Gibson predict versus how much did
Gibson’s vision of the future actually shaped what is now a kind of “Techno –Cool?”
From its initial publication, this book
has been popular with young people and people interested and involved with
technology. By influencing these people, Gibson may have actually helped to create
this new kind of “cool.”

This
was one of the first, perhaps the very first, books of the “cyberpunk” genre.
As such, it has had an enormous impact on science fiction that has come since.
Gibson painted a picture of a dark world that was dominated by digital
technology as well as powerful and malevolent corporations, and one that was
full of hip and colorful characters. I have read few other cyberpunk books, and
although I am sure that there are some that are some very good ones out there,
the books that I have read seemed to be pale imitations of this novel.

The
character of Molly seems to be a template for so many characters that came
after. These days, science fiction and young adult books, as well as films,
often depict assertive female characters who are physically attractive, technically
competent and also exhibit fighting prowess These characters are often depicted
as cool and trendy. Molly is all of these things. To some extent, these female
characters have become something of a cliché.

These
attributes are on display in Molly’s first meeting with Case. It involves her
taking him by force.

“My name’s Molly. I’m
collecting you for the man I work for. Just wants to talk, is all. Nobody wants
to hurt you.” “That’s good.” “ ’Cept I do hurt people sometimes,. I guess
it’s just the way I’m wired.” She wore tight black gloveleather jeans and a
bulky black jacket cut from some matte fabric that seemed to absorb light. “If
I put this dartgun away, will you be easy, Case? You look like you like to take
stupid chances.” “Hey, I’m very easy. I’m a pushover, no problem.” “That’s
fine, man…Because you try to fuck around with me, you’ll be taking one of the
stupidest chances of your whole life.” She held out her hands, palms up, the
white fingers slightly spread, and with a barely audible click, ten
double-edged, four centimeter scalpel blades slid from their housings beneath
the burgundy nails. She smiled. The blades slowly withdrew.”

Molly
is not as sanitized or toned down as many of her imitations are.She shows more than just physical prowess.
She is a trained killer. Her violence is not always directed at malicious
characters. Though she has a code of ethics, her morality is questionable at
best. It seems few books dare to take their protagonist as far as Gibson went
with Molly.

Later,
Case observes Molly going on the attack,

“The right attitude; it was
something he could sense, something he could have seen in the posture of
another cowboy leaning into a deck, fingers flying across the board. She had
it: the thing, the moves. And she’d pulled it all together for her entrance.
Pulled it together around the pain in her leg and marched down 3Jane’s stairs
like she owned the place, elbow of her gun arm at her hip, forearm up, wrist
relaxed, swaying the muzzle of the fletcher with the studied nonchalance of a
Regency duelist. It was a performance. It was like the culmination of a
lifetime’s observation of martial arts tapes, cheap ones, the kind Case had
grown up on. For a few seconds, he knew, shewas every bad-ass hero, Sony Mao in the old Shaw videos, Mickey Chiba,
the whole lineage back to Lee and Eastwood. She was walking it the way she
talked it. “

The
above passages paint a picture of “cool and tough” action. Yet, the text seems
to question from where these images and ideas originated. Are we just
glorifying something we learned from television, films and fictional
characters? What impact do books and
films have on our psyches? This passage highlights some of the complexities of
this book and of Molly’s character.It
is not just a futuristic action story about “bad-ass” characters. Gibson
questions the origin and the validity of these concepts.

As
I noted in my original post, I first read this book shortly after it was first
published. At the time, it seemed original but in some ways also unusual.
Rereading it now, when many of its concepts have become commonplace in both
fiction and in real life, it is an enlightening experience. This book has held
up very well over the years. It is still very much worth the read.